Subject: [nvo3] NVO3 interim meeting agenda

From: Ignas Bagdonas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 12:32:57 +0000

Dear working group,

The Network Virtualization Overlays (NVO3) Working Group will hold a 
virtual interim meeting on March 01, 2017 at 08:00 Pacific, 11:00 
Eastern, 16:00 London, 00:00 Beijing time for one hour. Meeting will be 
via Webex, connection URL:

https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=m45df3a1f21344df3440aa9be26895cce

More details can be found on the IETF interim meeting page:

https://www.ietf.org/meeting/interim/nvo3-2017-03-01.txt

Agenda:

1. Note well, meeting logistics, and introduction (chairs, 3 min)

2. Encapsulation discussion (25 min)

    - draft-dt-nvo3-encap (Sami Boutros/Pankaj Garg)

    - Encapsulation discussion.

3. OAM discussion (15 min)

    - draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header (Greg Mirsky)

    - draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-demand-cc-cv (Greg Mirsky)

    - OAM discussion

4. IETF98 planning (15 min)

    - Meeting format and topics (WG chairs)

    - Discussion

5. Closing (chairs, 2 min)

Ignas

---

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 12:00:52 -0800

Hi Ignas, et. al,
thank you for the update on the meeting.
Please note that the OOAM drafts been updated and updates will be
highlighted at the meeting:

   - https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header-02
   - https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-demand-cc-cv-02

Appreciate your reviews, comments and suggestions. Contributions are always
welcome.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Ignas Bagdonas <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> virtual interim meeting on March 01, 2017 at 08:00 Pacific, 11:00 Eastern,
> 16:00 London, 00:00 Beijing time for one hour. Meeting will be via Webex,
> connection URL:
>
> _______________________________________________
> nvo3 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
>

---

From: Anoop Ghanwani <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 15:24:02 -0800

A few questions:

- Is there a reference for background/requirements that resulted in this?
- Would be good to have a figure showing where in the packet the OOAM
header resides.
- Does the length include the OOAM header?
- What are the 4 timestamp values for?  (I have a slight preference for
starting the counting from 0.)

Anoop

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Appreciate your reviews, comments and suggestions. Contributions are
> always welcome.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>

---

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 16:08:30 -0800

Hi Anoop,
thank you for the questions. Please find my answers in-line and tagged
GIM>>.

Regards,
Greg

> - Is there a reference for background/requirements that resulted in this?
GIM>> Yes, we have Overlay OAM Requirements draft
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-requirement-02>.
Comments and questions ae most welcome.

> - Would be good to have a figure showing where in the packet the OOAM
GIM>> Great suggestion. Will add into the next update. In general, OOAM
Header immediately follows the overlay encapsulation, e.g. NVO3, NSH or
BIER.

> - Does the length include the OOAM header?
GIM>> Yes, the Length includes the header and reflects the length of the
OAM message.

> starting the counting from 0.)
GIM>> These were meant for one-way and round-trip delay and delay variation
measurement. Of course, accuracy of measurements will depend on
implementation.
GIM>> Could you please explain "starting the counting from 0" in regard to
timestamp. If clocks are synchronized, why would that matter?

---

From: Anoop Ghanwani <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 16:55:05 -0800

Would be good to include a description of what these are and how they are
derived in the draft, unless there's already a reference for it.

This was just an editorial comment--that the 4 timestamps should be
numbered 0-3, rather than 1-4.

Anoop

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]> wrote:

> GIM>> These were meant for one-way and round-trip delay and delay
> variation measurement. Of course, accuracy of measurements will depend on
> implementation.
>>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Ignas Bagdonas <[email-masked]
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear working group,
>>>>